Korgscrew
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4ae5/d4ae509d3ad0c9f7b0c214bdfe86e5cad72e531e" alt="Offline"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ea69f/ea69f5df039d14fee230c7bb39ab7c082ba1e0d0" alt=""
Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1897d/1897d804cfe2377c6f46ebb7159528afeeb3075c" alt="" |
Posted: April 19 2004, 03:44 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98658/98658e8c85f685c117baaf74977abb4420795c6c" alt="" |
Well, it's obviously not the same as Tubular Bells 2003, but I like the SACD of Tubular Bells very much. Some complain that the four channel surround mix (in case you didn't know already, the mix featured is Phil Newell's quadraphonic mix from 1975, as found on Boxed) lays all the mistakes rather bare in comparison to the stereo mix. I don't find this to be so, though it can depend on speaker positioning (if the surrounds are too far round to the rear, the separation can sound very stark). The sound quality is good - I think I'd perhaps even say that the quality of the multichannel mix is a little better than the stereo one, no doubt due to it having been made by a more experienced engineer. The stereo version sounds good too - still with its imperfections of course, but probably about as good a sounding version as will ever be released (and an improvement in terms of detail over the HDCD edition - not as stunning a difference as with some SACDs, which could well be down to the source material, or, if I may put the cat among the pigeons, perhaps because it was made from a PCM rather than DSD master...).
I say it's well worth a try, perhaps not instead of, but certainly as well as the Tubular Bells 2003 DVD-A. I think I'd go so far as to say that the SACD multichannel mix is my current favourite version of Tubular Bells.
|